[subego]

The world needs more discussion about the Girl Scouts by (mostly) white men.

Question one: should there be sex ed in the Girl Scouts? If so, to what degree and over what ages?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

No.

[besson3c]

There was a girl scout around here that made a big stink about a transgender boy joining the girl scouts. Being in a conservative state I guess this is not that uncommon, but it was still an amusing story.

[subego]

No answering the questions out of order!

[besson3c]

I'm okay with sex ed in the girl scouts, maybe it would be more effective and less awkward than what they would get at school or from their parents? I don't really care where and when kids get this education, as long as they get it and it is the good stuff. No black and white singing sperm videos from the 50s or 60s.

[Waragainstsleep]

I don't see it happening. Including it will drive members away, not including it won't.

The only way to 'enforce' sex ed is at school (and then to enforce school) but that would infringe on your god-given rights to raise your children as ignorant religious cultists.

[subego]

IIUC, it's already happening, and as you predicted, people don't like it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I don't see it happening. Including it will drive members away, not including it won't.

The only way to 'enforce' sex ed is at school (and then to enforce school) but that would infringe on your god-given rights to raise your children as ignorant religious cultists.

Do they have singing sperm videos in the UK? I'd love to see some of those with all of those cute British accents!

[ghporter]

Many of today's parents are too wierded out to actually have "the talk" with their children. And it seems that this talk is harder for parents when the child is a girl... Further, a well built education program can help a girl avoid carrying on her mother's inaccurate beliefs and ineffective or unsafe habits and practices. In other words, when the 'rents don't teach kids, someone has to.

It looks like GSA went to a recognized expert organization for their sex ed materials. This is the crux of the whining and gnashing of teeth: the expert organization is Planned Parenthood, and a number of "conservative" groups are all up in arms about this. Of course this has been going on for YEARS and the conservative idiots are just getting wind of it. And of course the Planned Parenthood education materials are focused on safety and awareness, rather than what the conservatives are referring to as "explicit sex ed." And there is the point - these self-characterized conservatives are apparently of the opinion that teaching their kids what NOT to do will encourage them to do just that...so to them, no education is what they want. Or, as I noted above, they're too freaked out by their girls maturing on schedule to be able to teach them anything, and are in total denial that children grow and mature... Both of which is like handing a person a hand grenade, pulling the pin (and keeping it!), and telling them "figure it out yourself, but don't be bad!" Dumb, very dumb.

[stupendousman]

It all comes down to the fact that it's a parent's responsibility to guide a child in the important areas of life. There's a host of things parents can fail their child on, but it should be they who decides what their children learn in regards to moral issues, and when. Especially sex.

If they are "weirded out" by it, they can ask another adult to help. But again, it's no one's else's responsibility, so no one else who be taking the responsibility on their own. It very well be that the information in question isn't something they believe that their child is ready for, or should have and it's no one else's business deciding it is.

Other than teaching them basic "safety with strangers" there's really nothing the Girl Scouts should be adding unless those in charge have an agenda which goes above and beyond the Scouts traditional role, which seems to be the case these days. Especially when you hear that they've been encouraging the girls to get information on issues from left-wing propaganda sites like Media Matters.

I was a Boy Scout. My son is a Scout. Besides the "safety" aspect dealing with strangers and "touching" sex isn't an issue - and shouldn't be IMO.

[ghporter]

Admitting one is wierded out is apparently as unappealing as talking about sex with the kids. It's a vicious circle and the KIDS are the ones who suffer.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do they have singing sperm videos in the UK? I'd love to see some of those with all of those cute British accents!

And, do they have Girl Scouts.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's a host of things parents can fail their child on, but it should be they who decides what their children learn in regards to moral issues, and when. Especially sex.

One can surmise from this you don't think there should be sex-ed in school either. Correct?

[Waragainstsleep]

We have an equivalent of girl scouts in the UK, yes. Not sure about singing sperm. Doesn't ring a bell. Except to make me think of Monty Python but thats singing about sperm.

The whole "its up to the parents to do it" attitude while technically 100% correct, is practically foolish. Its a little like vaccines where its easy to say it should be your choice and it does not harm to anyone else but this clearly isn't the case.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

All girls are not girl scouts. Therefore you'll miss some if this is your venue for the topic.

[Chongo]

For those who have an issue with the direction GSA/World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts is going, there is an alternative: Home (American Heritage Girls) Camp Fire Girls, now Camp Fire USA, went coed in 1975. I'm not aware of any complaints about CF USA.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

All girls are not girl scouts. Therefore you'll miss some if this is your venue for the topic.

What do you think is the best venue other than home?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

You see there are these places called schools. People build them specifically to teach other people things. Amazing right?

[Shaddim]

No. No sex ed in the GS.

[andi*pandi]

I don't think boy or girl scouts is the place for it, but I'm not familiar with the program they are using or how "explicit" it may really be.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No. No sex ed in the GS.

Make it a voluntary opt in after school class? That way the lazy / squeamish parents can just sign the consent form. Better yet for the girls make it a field trip to an obgyn? Just for talking if that wasn't clear.

[The Final Dakar]

Between this and the cruise ship thread I feel like the OPs have been withholding information. Why would the Girl Scouts do sex ed?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

One can surmise from this you don't think there should be sex-ed in school either. Correct?

Depends on what the definition of "sex-ed" is.

If it means making sure kids know biologically how human reproduction occurs (science) and very basic information on how to avoid sexually communicable diseases and pregnancy (health) I don't see a problem. My boy is in middle school and got all that, in addition to the detailed talk we had before.

If the definition includes detailed explanation of oral sex, anal sex and teaching grade schoolers to masturbate - not so much.

...and before anyone protests that no one wants the definition to include what I just mentioned - stop, they do and have been trying.

So, I'm for SOME sex-ed. But beyond the basics needed for a general accurate understanding, I don't think it's the place of a third party to decide on their own to share. Moral values are involved. It's should never be a school's job to teach sexual morals, and they'd do a piss poor job if it was. They have a hard enough time teaching the stuff they are primarily responsible for.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Depends on what the definition of "sex-ed" is.

If it means making sure kids know biologically how human reproduction occurs (science) and very basic information on how to avoid sexually communicable diseases and pregnancy (health) I don't see a problem. My boy is in middle school and got all that, in addition to the detailed talk we had before.

If the definition includes detailed explanation of oral sex, anal sex and teaching grade schoolers to masturbate - not so much.

There is a very sensible argument that in order to teach someone how to prevent the transmission of diseases through various sexual acts, they need to know what those acts entail.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The same argument would dictate you teach them how to effectively shoot heroin and rob a liquor store using a hack-saw blade...

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The same argument would dictate you teach them how to effectively shoot heroin and rob a liquor store using a hack-saw blade...

No it wouldn't. What a silly thing to say.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

No it wouldn't. What a silly thing to say.

It was a pretty idiotic thing to say. Aside from the anal sex, you can most likely count on these girls to try these things.

[Waragainstsleep]

More to the point, you can count on the boys to try to persuade them to.
And there are far more common fallacies around sex than there are around taking heroin.

[stupendousman]

If you've already explained sexual reproduction, I think that really the only explanation that's required is that these diseases are normally spread by engaging in activities where you come into contact with another person's genitalia or bodily fluids.

That covers a pretty wide "margin of error" for the type of behavior that could spread an STD, and doesn't require an explanation of all the varied acts that are included.

Seriously, there's no reason for the details unless you are trying to teach the kids how to engage in the specific acts, which I know is what some want.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Between this and the cruise ship thread I feel like the OPs have been withholding information. Why would the Girl Scouts do sex ed?

The only thing I'm withholding is an anti-GS poster which accuses them of doing sex-ed. The poster doesn't directly ask the question in my OP, it instead answers the question as if there's no debate.

I think it's debatable, so I decided the best course would be to post the debate question and keep the inspiration out of it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

You see there are these places called schools. People build them specifically to teach other people things. Amazing right?

Is there something I said which deserves this snarky response? It really seems out of nowhere.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...and before anyone protests that no one wants the definition to include what I just mentioned - stop, they do and have been trying.

Who are "they"?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

No it wouldn't. What a silly thing to say.

Yes it would. What a silly thing to deny.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It was a pretty idiotic thing to say. Aside from the anal sex, you can most likely count on these girls to try these things.

Hur hur, yeah if you just change what was said you can make it mean anything you like. Aside from heroin, you can most likely count on girls to break laws and try drugs sooner or later.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

More to the point, you can count on the boys to try to persuade them to.
And there are far more common fallacies around sex than there are around taking heroin.

More to the point, you can count on other teens to try to persuade them to (experiment with drugs, theft, and other crimes). There most certainly are not more "fallacies" around sex than around marijuana (for example), but it is not necessary to teach a kid to roll a joint in order to impart the lesson that drugs should be avoided, nor is it necessary to teach the methods of shoplifting or security evasion in order to pre-empt those. The whole premise, that "how" is a prerequisite for "don't," is flawed.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes it would. What a silly thing to deny.

Hur hur, yeah if you just change what was said you can make it mean anything you like. Aside from heroin, you can most likely count on girls to break laws and try drugs sooner or later.

More to the point, you can count on other teens to try to persuade them to (experiment with drugs, theft, and other crimes). There most certainly are not more "fallacies" around sex than around marijuana (for example), but it is not necessary to teach a kid to roll a joint in order to impart the lesson that drugs should be avoided, nor is it necessary to teach the methods of shoplifting or security evasion in order to pre-empt those. The whole premise, that "how" is a prerequisite for "don't," is flawed.

There are many more fallacies around sex than marijuana as you might expect from a 'pastime' which is A) Legal, B) More widely practiced and C) Involves a much much wider subset of 'component activities' for lack of better terminology. At the very least, people are more likely to be exposed to sexual fallacies than weed-related ones.
In light of your responses so far, I'll spell this out a little further, for the dope at least.
You can roll it in joint as you mentioned, you can smoke it in a pipe or bong with or without tobacco or a tobacco substitute or you can cook food containing it. Thats basically it. There are only so many believable lies you can tell about the consequences of those activities. Many marijuana fallacies are harmless under most circumstances.

Sexual fallacies like "you can't get pregnant the first time" or "you can't catch a disease via insert sexual act" can obviously have potentially serious consequences for anyone suckered into believing them. They are much less likely to get suckered if they are warned explicitly about a given act. Otherwise there will always be an element of doubt, particularly if the one spreading the fallacy is believed to be more experienced.

Your examples are poor if only because they are both illegal. Not everyone does them, but pretty much everyone knows they could get arrested and jailed if they do. These things are drummed into kids from an early age. You are comparing something that everyone does sooner or later to something that only "bad people do" as far as kids are concerned. On top of that, they are all or nothing examples. "Drugs should be avoided" is your message, not "Drugs can be great fun and perfectly safe if used correctly but sometimes they can be very bad". (I'm not looking to debate that btw) Maybe you support abstinence but as a scientist, you'll be all too aware that the evidence shows that doesn't really work very well. If you don't, sex is obviously not so black and white.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Seriously, there's no reason for the details unless you are trying to teach the kids how to engage in the specific acts, which I know is what some want.

There really is. If a girl is simply told "Don't give a boy a hand job and then touch yourself, you could get pregnant or catch a disease", firstly how is she going to know what a hand job is and what happens at the end of one and how pregnancy or disease transfer can then occur unless you tell her? Secondly, would you really prefer she got her explanation via Google and most likely the Urban Dictionary?

I really do think its quite important to teach girls in particular that boys will try to persuade them to do things they shouldn't as well as telling them why they shouldn't. Also boys should be taught not tell these lies though I'm quite certain that many will do it anyway.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Hur hur, yeah if you just change what was said you can make it mean anything you like.

Frustrating, isn't it?

(although I didn't do it on purpose)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Who are "they"?

Lot's of different groups. Obama for instance backed measures to provide sex-ed to kindergartners. What kind? In his defense, he said it should be "age appropriate." However, under further investigation "age appropriate" to those who were pushing the mandate and others like it included teaching them about masturbation as "age appropriate." It's been awhile since I had looked into this issue, but I can find a link to the course information if I really need to.

That's just one of many, many examples.

Actually, it didn't take long to find a source:
http://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2...s-of-his-plan/

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...and before anyone protests that no one wants the definition to include what I just mentioned - stop, they do and have been trying.

The evil "They" raises it's head.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Seriously, there's no reason for the details unless you are trying to teach the kids how to engage in the specific acts, which I know is what some want.

No doubt *some* do. Unfortunately, "some" are probably not limited to the "left".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

No doubt *some* do. Unfortunately, "some" are probably not limited to the "left".

Doesn't really matter which side.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

There really is. If a girl is simply told "Don't give a boy a hand job and then touch yourself, you could get pregnant or catch a disease", firstly how is she going to know what a hand job is

No need to "simply tell" a girl what a hand job is. Sexually transmitted diseases can be obtained from contact with the genitalia of someone infected, or their bodily fluids. If you want to specify to older students the exact STD's available, you can outline which ones require genital to genital contact, or exchange of bodily fluids. No need to outline all the possible combinations of ways humans can use their genitals for pleasure.

Really, this isn't rocket science.

I really do think its quite important to teach girls in particular that boys will try to persuade them to do things they shouldn't as well as telling them why they shouldn't. Also boys should be taught not tell these lies though I'm quite certain that many will do it anyway.

All possible without outlining specific acts. Contact with the genitals of another person pretty much covers everything.

[Shaddim]

I've always liked their cookies.

[besson3c]

I think your way of thinking is pretty naive, stupendousman. These kids are going to learn about these acts much sooner than you think they will, from the sounds of things. They might as well get their first lesson from an adult.

Many parents clearly either live in the past or are disconnected from reality based on the sorts of stories we hear virtually daily about kids doing stuff with each other. I'm not necessarily suggesting that the girl scouts should decide when sex ed is taught, but if I had a kid that picked up accurate information from a source like this I certainly wouldn't behave as if there has been some sort of personal infringement upon me or this was some travesty, I'd be thankful for my kid having learned something. What's the point in shielding kids from the same information that their friends might already have or might be useful to them?

Besides, I would bet that many parents have a personal bias shaped by their upbringing around puritan bullshit that they are blind to. Kids are having sex, that's just the reality - like it or not.

I'm not directing this at you particularly, stupendousman, although the stuff you are saying kind of smells like typical social conservative crap that sets me off.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've always liked their cookies.

They do rock, what is it about them that makes them so? What is their secret ingredient?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I wouldn't mind someone teaching my kid how to rob a liquor store with a hacksaw blade. That could be a pretty good skill to know. Heck, I want to learn this myself.

I'm fine with my kid being taught sex-ed when the time comes. Before then, I'd simply appreciate if the school he eventually attends teaches him how to read, write and do math. He will most certainly will not be attending any school that can't do that (and there are plenty) and yet touts itself as having a world-class sex-ed class.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've always liked their cookies.

Then there's this little tidbit from down the road in Tucson.

The Girl Scouts, which have already come under fire for numerous links to the Planned Parenthood abortion business and having pro-abortion speakers at their recent national conference, are under fire again.

Now, an Arizona college student who is an employee of the Girl Scouts has quit her job after scouting leaders informed her she would have to turn her pro-life T-shirt inside out. Renise Rodriguez, a 21-year-old religious studies major at the University of Arizona, worked as a Girl Experience Associate for the Girl Scouts of Southern Arizona in Tucson.

When she went to her office last week during her off-duty hours to prepare materials for a meeting, she was told twice by a supervisor that if she planned to stay in the office or attend a troop meeting she would have to turn her shirt inside out.

Rodriguez quit in response.

“I started to get emotional because of the way I was treated so I left without preparing for the meeting and told my co-worker that she would have to get the stuff together,” she said. “As I was driving out, I called a friend crying and told her the story. I was so shocked at the way I was treated. After contemplating it for the rest of that day, I decided to write my letter of resignation.”

Her letter did not specify her reason for resigning, but she plans to discuss it with another supervisor when she does her formal exit interview.

Miss Rodriquez in the offending shirt

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think your way of thinking is pretty naive, stupendousman. These kids are going to learn about these acts much sooner than you think they will, from the sounds of things.

You can't stop sex.

They might as well get their first lesson from an adult.

If that's what their parents want.

Many parents clearly either live in the past or are disconnected from reality...

Or have moral values much different then yours. Talk about naive!

I'm not directing this at you particularly, stupendousman, although the stuff you are saying kind of smells like typical social conservative crap that sets me off.

You can teach your kids about the cornucopia of sexual practices they can choose to engage in if you like. That's your prerogative. Don't be so intolerant as to think that you need to impose that way of thinking on all parents. That's the type of self-righteous egoism that sets me off.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I wouldn't mind someone teaching my kid how to rob a liquor store with a hacksaw blade. That could be a pretty good skill to know. Heck, I want to learn this myself.

If parents don't teach them how, they are going to have no choice but to learn it on the streets, after all.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Lot's of different groups. Obama for instance backed measures to provide sex-ed to kindergartners. What kind? In his defense, he said it should be "age appropriate." However, under further investigation "age appropriate" to those who were pushing the mandate and others like it included teaching them about masturbation as "age appropriate." It's been awhile since I had looked into this issue, but I can find a link to the course information if I really need to.

That's just one of many, many examples.

Actually, it didn't take long to find a source:
When Obama says, “age appropriate sex education” what does he mean? It isn’t what you think! � Mcauleysworld’s Weblog

It looks like those have been toned down somewhat.

Have a peek at the new guidelines and see if they work for you:

http://www.futureofsexed.org/documen...ndards-web.pdf

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I wouldn't mind someone teaching my kid how to rob a liquor store with a hacksaw blade. That could be a pretty good skill to know. Heck, I want to learn this myself.

Who needs a hacksaw when you've got Jimmy Wales.

Lock bumping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is ridiculously easy to do. The only caveat is you can get your bump key jammed in the lock, so don't practice it on a door you need to use (like, say, your front door).

Enjoy.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

There are many more fallacies around sex than marijuana as you might expect from a 'pastime' which is A) Legal, B) More widely practiced and C) Involves a much much wider subset of 'component activities' for lack of better terminology. At the very least, people are more likely to be exposed to sexual fallacies than weed-related ones.
In light of your responses so far, I'll spell this out a little further, for the dope at least.
You can roll it in joint as you mentioned, you can smoke it in a pipe or bong with or without tobacco or a tobacco substitute or you can cook food containing it. Thats basically it. There are only so many believable lies you can tell about the consequences of those activities. Many marijuana fallacies are harmless under most circumstances.

I'm confused how you're drawing an equivalency between number of "positions" and number of "fallacies."

Your examples are poor if only because they are both illegal.

Ha! I know that you know that being legal or not is irrelevant. Because if it wasn't, you wouldn't need to "teach" any of this stuff; you would just drop a copy of the statutes on the tikes' little laps and call it a day.

I was trying to think of a counter-example that we could all agree is immoral (rather than one which only one side thinks is). What do you consider immoral but is still legal? No offense, but I don't know you well enough to guess.

You are comparing something that everyone does sooner or later to something that only "bad people do" as far as kids are concerned. On top of that, they are all or nothing examples. "Drugs should be avoided" is your message, not "Drugs can be great fun and perfectly safe if used correctly but sometimes they can be very bad". (I'm not looking to debate that btw) Maybe you support abstinence but as a scientist, you'll be all too aware that the evidence shows that doesn't really work very well. If you don't, sex is obviously not so black and white.

I don't support abstinence but I do support freedom. Abstinence is one of those (wrong IMO) choices that people should be free to try if they want.

There really is. If a girl is simply told "Don't give a boy a hand job and then touch yourself, you could get pregnant or catch a disease", firstly how is she going to know what a hand job is and what happens at the end of one and how pregnancy or disease transfer can then occur unless you tell her? Secondly, would you really prefer she got her explanation via Google and most likely the Urban Dictionary?

Exactly the same with drugs. It's not like encouragement or instruction on them isn't also found on Google.